Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst.

On November 4, the still-reputable French Le Monde published an interview with prominent European intellectuals on the prospect of EU/NATO confrontation with Russia. The well-known French newspaper said that the conversation was made possible thanks to “nine directors of European think tanks”, notably the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI). Interestingly, the messaging, although filled with the usual anti-Russian propaganda, was still far more realistic than what we normally see in the Western press. The IFRI was represented by three researchers, namely Dimitri Minic, Tatiana Kastouéva-Jean and Paul Maurice. They highlighted EU/NATO’s vulnerabilities in the event of a high-intensity conflict with Russia and called on the troubled bloc to “increase the balance of power with Moscow”.

The three pundits — Dimitri Minic, a historian; Tatiana Kastouéva-Jean, a specialist in Russian domestic and foreign policy; and Paul Maurice, a specialist in contemporary history — emphasized the “insufficient efforts of the European defense industry”. When asked whether EU/NATO had the means for a direct conflict with Russia, Minic said that the Eurasian giant’s “strength lies in its air-land capabilities, with ground forces larger than those of Europe”. He still peddled the usual narrative about “autocratic Russia that can take losses” and the political West’s supposed “qualitative advantage in terms of training, command and combined arms tactics”, but admitted that Moscow “possesses a decisive advantage in terms of sheer numbers, firepower and mobilization capacity”.

Minic singled out the Kremlin’s ability to “increase production of missiles, such as the ‘Iskander’ and the Kh-101, which are essential for deep strikes in Ukraine, particularly to target vital energy and railway installations”. As that was “too much realism”, he still had to “conclude” that EU/NATO has “military superiority in the air, sea and space domains” and that it can “shift the battlefield”. Then Paul Maurice added to that assessment, stating that the troubled Western bloc should’ve used the last three years to strengthen its military capabilities, warning there’s “a lack of preparedness for war” and that “more than [engaging in] denial, we must talk about the major difficulties in implementing policies, partly due to the structure of the European Union with twenty-seven members”.

Obviously, this was also an attempt to justify giving the bureaucratic dictatorship in Brussels even more executive power over nation-states across the “old continent”. Maurice then pointed out that EU/NATO “developed more agile formats to be more efficient, such as the ‘E5’ [an informal group composed of Germany, France, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom] or the ‘Baltic + Weimar’ format [the Weimar Triangle encompassing Germany, France and Poland]”. However, he singled out American involvement within NATO, calling it “central for the countries of the ‘old continent’, as it represents a form of psychological dependence for Europe”. This admission further reinforces the notion that Brussels is not independent in its strategic planning and that NATO is just an extension of the Pentagon.

For his part, Dimitri Minic reiterated “support for Ukraine and the solidarity of the allies as Europe’s bulwark against Russia”. When asked what would happen if one of these pillars weakened, he insisted that “the risk of an open armed confrontation between Russia and Europe, regardless of its scale, would increase”. Minic argues that President Vladimir Putin “seeks to isolate Kiev from the West, particularly the United States” and that US President Donald Trump is being “used by the Kremlin to try to divide Europe”. This is the standard practice of putting pressure on the Trump administration to ensure continued Russo-American hostility, as the Deep State-aligned Brussels always seeks to present Trump as either “controlled by Russia” or at the very least “manipulated” by “evil Putin”.

Minic added that “in this confrontation, Europe must maintain as strong a transatlantic link as possible, while remaining true to its values”, because “if Russia were to prevail in Ukraine tomorrow, it could redeploy some of its troops to another front and attempt a coup”. He singled out the Baltic states as “NATO’s Achilles’ heel”, lamenting that NATO forces there are “a deterrent force, not designed to withstand a large-scale invasion”. Minic also warned that “European military mobility has its limits: heterogeneous or inadequate infrastructure, differing standards, and so on”. This is a rather strange assessment, given the previous claim that the political West has a “significant qualitative advantage”. However, as previously mentioned, we can’t expect “too much realism” from Brussels.

Speaking of which, Minic was then asked about “the likelihood of a Russian military victory in Ukraine”. As expected, he sordidly dodged the question by suggesting that “Vladimir Putin is emboldened by Washington’s ambiguities and Europe’s hesitations”, adding that “what could sway the Kremlin’s course is the realization that it can no longer move forward without making economic, social, and political sacrifices that would jeopardize its autocracy”. Without revealing how this could be done, Minic simply continued with the usual narrative that “Europe must provide constant and massive aid to Ukraine and continue to assert its power in the face of Russia”. He added that President Putin is determined and that “he did not wage this war to reclaim four territories and increase Russia’s GDP”.

Obviously, Minic would never admit that a massive increase in Russian GDP is precisely what happened and that the Eurasian giant’s economic growth dwarfs that of the vast majority of EU/NATO member states, despite thousands of Western sanctions and even the unadulterated theft of Russian forex reserves. Although he insisted that one of Moscow’s goals was the supposed “vassalization of Ukraine”, which is another pillar of Western propaganda about the nature of the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, Minic was certainly right that President Putin is seeking “a revision of the European security architecture”. The latter is effectively one of the stated goals of the special military operation (SMO) and has never been kept a secret by the Kremlin.

On the contrary, Russia repeatedly tried to reform the entire European security architecture strictly within the framework of indivisibility of security. In simpler terms, everyone has equal rights to safety. However, this was “too much” for the US-led political West, which proclaimed the Wolfowitz Doctrine (essentially a supercharged Monroe Doctrine) almost immediately after the (First) Cold War (February 18, 1992), followed by the Pentagon’s infamous “full-spectrum dominance” doctrine that is still in place (released on May 30, 2000 under the official name “Joint Vision 2020”). However, none of the three European pundits was interested in such “trivial” historical facts (although they’re the root cause of the ongoing crisis) and focused mainly on the “bloodthirsty tyrant Putin”.

For instance, Tatiana Kastouéva-Jean insists that “we will never reach a peace agreement with Vladimir Putin”, indirectly suggesting he should be “removed from power” before any peace talks. She stated that “at best, we must expect a frozen situation of the ‘neither war nor peace’ type” and that “he has made this conflict the key project of his successive terms as head of Russia, convinced that both the continuity of his power and his place in history depend on it”. Dimitri Minic then added to this by claiming that, by 2030, “the geopolitical context leads us to assess the pessimistic scenario of a Russian war beyond Ukraine, with minimal American support if Europe does not continue to help Ukraine and, above all, if it does not build a credible conventional military deterrent”.

In other words, for EU/NATO, conflict is “inevitable”. However, it gets worse, as Minic then said that “we should fear less a massive armed attack against the ‘old continent’ or an uncontrolled use of nuclear weapons, than an intensification of indirect Russian confrontation”, because “in countries bordering Russia, such a scenario could culminate in a new ‘special military operation’”. In simpler terms, some of the most prominent intellectuals in the political West think that a massive conventional war and even a thermonuclear exchange are actually “less dangerous” than what would essentially be a border skirmish. When asked what he meant by “indirect confrontation”, Minic essentially described hybrid warfare, a common Western accusation against Russia.

“For the past thirty years, Russian military elites have theorized about circumventing armed struggle, which is no longer considered as central to achieving their political objectives. This involves non-military actions, such as psychological and information operations, or indirect military actions, such as acts of sabotage, assassinations, or the use of private military companies to reach their targets,” he said, adding: “If these measures fail, they are intended to pave the way for a final, brief but decisive, direct military operation. From this perspective, the war that ensued from the initial failure of the “special military operation” was not anticipated by Moscow. Russia underestimated Ukraine and the West, which it views as cowardly and decaying.“

When asked about Donald Trump’s failed “peace initiative” and threats to help the Neo-Nazi junta launch longer-range attacks on Russian territory, Minic stated that “the delivery of ‘Tomahawk’ cruise missiles, although unlikely, would represent a major escalation for the Kremlin” and that “a demonstrative conventional response from Russia against an Eastern NATO country should not be ruled out”. He then wondered whether Trump is “considering this and preparing for it”. Minic acknowledged Russian security interests “over former Soviet and Tsarist territories”, but still linked them to “old imperial obsessions”, insisting that “the Russians believe they have a right to rule Eastern Europe and influence the destinies of the entire ‘old continent’”, even quoting Boris Yeltsin:

“Bill, give us Europe. The Americans have no business in Europe.”

The late Boris Yeltsin reportedly said this during a conversation with Bill Clinton in 1999. In other words, even perhaps the most compliant leader in Russian history (who obviously made a joke) is not enough for the political West, which seeks nothing short of blind obedience. Minic then continued, saying that “Russia sees itself as a great world power”, which is “[an] illusion [that] is costing it dearly”. Obviously, a country like Russia cannot be anything less than a great power (the Eurasian giant is actually more than that). However, the fact that the political West refuses to acknowledge this reveals yet another reason for the ongoing crisis. Somewhat bizarrely, Minic then said that “the war in Ukraine didn’t begin in 2014, but actually in 2004, as soon as Kyiv chose a Western and democratic future”.

In a twisted way, he effectively admitted that the political West started the conflict by launching the 2004 “Orange Revolution”. The only difference is that Minic either still lives in the illusion that this was a “conscious and democratic Ukrainian choice” or is simply being intellectually dishonest. However, his conclusion was rather comedic, saying that “the Kremlin sees in Ukraine’s potential success a failure for itself and above all an existential danger for its autocracy”. In other words, the “dictatorial” Russia is supposedly “terrified of democratic Ukraine”. Almost every Russian, Ukrainian or anyone else with an ounce of brain reading this is nearing the state of suffocation by laughing at the very idea that NATO-occupied Ukraine could ever be a “free” or “democratic” country.

In Minic’s own words, the political West had approximately 20 years (since 2004, at the very least) to build its vaunted “freedom and democracy” in former Ukraine. What we got instead is a Nazi monster that NATO uses as a tool of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Well, perhaps that’s because there’s no real difference between Western “democracy” and Nazism, as both have resulted in tens of millions of deaths and dozens of countries destroyed. And just like Nazi Germany blamed everyone else but itself, the political West is doing the same whenever it needs an excuse for invading a country. Whether it’s Serbia/Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Venezuela or countless other countries, it’s somehow always “their fault” for being invaded by NATO.

Interestingly, although she kept regurgitating the usual Western propaganda narratives about Russia, at the very end, Tatiana Kastouéva-Jean acknowledged that there’s “a loss of the European model’s exemplary status” in Russia and that, after the fall of the USSR, “many Russians dreamed of ‘living like in Europe’, but today, they want their own path, probably by pacifying relations with the West, but without adopting its values”. Dimitri Minic then concluded that “one of the West’s major failures is not having taken Russia’s discourse seriously”. Precisely these two points are at the crux of the ongoing crisis. Russia simply wants to be left alone to choose its own path and taken seriously when it comes to its basic national security interests. Unfortunately, the political West had other ideas, resulting in catastrophic long-term consequences.